Nigel Barnett talks about bribes and other proprietary rights in insolvencies.

Introduction

For over 150 years, it has been a principle of English law that if an agent takes a bribe or a secret commission, he is liable to account to his principal for the amount received. However, there has been conflicting authority and academic debate as to whether the principal merely has a personal claim against the agent or whether he can assert a proprietary claim to the monies received and any profits made therefrom.

At the end of October the Pension Protection Fund announced that it had come to an agreement with Monarch Airlines and the Pensions Regulator to accept the Monarch Airlines Limited Retirement Benefit Scheme into a PPF assessment period. The agreement, reached after discussions between the parties and the Trustees of the Scheme will enable the airline to restructure its business and accept £125m in new capital and liquidity facilities from Greybull Capital LLP in return for a 90 per cent shareholding.

On 30 October 2014, the English High Court sanctioned the second scheme of arrangement for the APCOA group (the “Scheme”). APCOA has been one of the hottest names in the restructuring market in 2014. First, it broke new ground in relation to an “amend and extend” scheme in early 2014 when it established sufficient connection to England off the back of a change in governing law. Second, the Scheme was aggressively opposed and its sanction by the High Court was appealed to the Court of Appeal (although ultimately the appeal was withdrawn).

Mr Justice Hildyard has handed down his first instance decision on the second set of schemes of arrangement proposed by the Apcoa group.

The Court of Appeal has held that claimant liquidators were in breach of an “unless order” for e-disclosure, overturning the High Court’s decision that there was no breach despite the mistaken omission of certain important categories of documents from the list:Smailes v McNally [2014] EWCA Civ 1296. The result was that the liquidators’ claim was struck out.

Bank of Tokyo-Mitsuibishi UFJ Ltd v Sanko Mineral (The MV Sanko Mineral) [2014]EWHC 3927 (Admlty)

Cargo Interests began proceedings in the U.S. against the Defendant former owner of the M/V SANKO MINERAL for breach of a contract of carriage. The bill of lading under which the claim was brought incorporated the terms of a charterparty which contained a time bar of 12 months from discharge of cargo.

The UK court recently considered the extent of s236 Insolvency Act 1986 (“IA 1986”) in the case of Re Comet Group Ltd (in liquidation); Khan and others v Whirlpool (UK) Ltd and another [2014] EWHC 3477 (Ch).

The High Court has declined to follow an earlier decision and ruled that a trustee in bankruptcy could not gain access to pensions benefits that were not already in payment.

Paragraph 71 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act allows an administrator to apply to court to sell assets subject to a fixed charge as if they were not subject to the security. The case of O’Connell v Rollings and others [2014] EWCA Civ 639 is a rare illustration of such an application and provides useful guidance on the factors the court will take into account.

The background

We have become used to a regular stream of decisions in which the courts are prepared to grant administration or winding up orders in respect of overseas companies which have COMI or an establishment in the UK. The decision inRe Buccament Bay Limited and another [2014] EWCH 3130 is a rare exception in which the court has refused to exercise its discretion.

The background